Arkansas Watch

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Doesn't Fit the Media Template

...That's probably why you haven't heard the real news. But first, the fake template and my best guess as to what is behind it: Republican Secretary of State Mark Martin's administration is supposed to be incompetent, and corrupt, with low morale. If those lies are repeated often enough, you are supposed to accept them as true regardless of the lack of merit of the accusations.

As I have noted, the unceasing attacks against the Secretary of State have kept people's attention partially distracted from the political crime of the decade in this state. That would be the way Gov. Mike Beebe and Attorney General Dustin McDaniel have run a secertive redistricting processs in violation of the state constitution. Martin is the third member of the trioka who is supposed to direct redistricting. Only his office has produced proposed maps available to the public. Only Martin's office has shown their maps in an effort to seek true feedback at the forums on redistricting. Unfortunately, with Beebe and McDaniel keeping secret their maps- that they can impose with a 2-1 vote, the public forums are little more than an illusion of public input.

The unrelenting media attacks have kept Martin's office covered up so that they can't engage as strongly as they would like on redistricting- which I think is what the good-ole-boys had in mind when they launched them. All they need to do is keep Martin dodging their mud another month or two and they will rush through their secret maps and it will all be over for another ten years.

But Martin has been doing his job, and doing it well. You are not going to hear about that in the media, because it does not fit their template. Take for example, their collection of corporate franchise taxes. This is the fee all corporations in the state pay each year. In the past, it has taken through the end of the Summer to complete these collections. This year, with fewer employees, the office has collected a record amount, most of which by statute goes to the education adequacy fund.

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Hubris Demonstrated

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is stepping down. I found his reasons instructive. Let's listen...

“I’ve spent my entire adult life with the United States as a superpower, and one that had no compunction about spending what it took to sustain that position,”

and

“To tell you the truth, that’s one of the many reasons it’s time for me to retire, because frankly I can’t imagine being part of a nation, part of a government … that’s being forced to dramatically scale back our engagement with the rest of the world.”

Such hubris. He was part of the ruling class that spent this nation into penury, but if we the people don't keep offering his Lordship an endless supply of blank checks, why then we just aren't good enough for him to stick around!

Notice there is not a trace of shame over the fact that he works for an administration that was voted in partly because it promised to reduce American interventionism, and then when it got in power simply continued/accelerated the Bush/Clinton/Bush policy of global meddling.

The endless engagement with the rest of the world, with the US state department meddling around the globe, is a major reason why we have to cut back spending now. Instead of regretting his major role in that stupendously mistaken failed strategy, he runs off in a huff because we are not willing to borrow more from the Chinese to continue it a little longer. Just keep borrowing money from the Chicoms to bomb people around the world until our credit runs dry! Yeah that sounds like a strategy- a strategy that will leave us broke, out of bombs, and facing an angry world.

Saturday, June 25, 2011

A Disproportionate Threat (War on Terror)

Eisenhower: The original conspiracy theorist?

"No state ever benefited from prolonged warfare" - TsSun Tzu

"All warfare is based on deception." - Tzu

***********************************************

I have many good friends who share my values that don't share my take on "the War on Terror." Fueled by a government-encouraged media-frenzy, they are so fearful of the threat of radical Islam that it is eclipsing other factors which they used to care about deeply when they made political choices. Or check that, they still care about those other things deeply, but have not resolved the conflict between those other things and the so-called "War on Terror."

Sun Tzu correctly noted that no state ever benefited from prolonged warfare. Unfortunately, modern technological states have a military-industrial complex which, like a parasite, does benefit from prolonged warfare- at the expense of the finances and the liberties of the actual nation. That is exactly what President General Eisenhower warned us about in 1961. Please listen to his chilling warning.

When this organism gains inordinate political influence, the tail can wag the dog. Instead of a nation's war machine existing to protect the people and their rights, it can become twisted so that the nation and its people exist only to keep the war machine growing. At that point, instead of protecting the rights and property of the people, the war machine becomes the biggest threat to them.

During the Cold War, it was obvious why we needed the War Machine, and world-wide bases, and a global spy network, and investigations here at home too. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the War Machine floundered for a bit, searching for a threat it could hype enough to justify its continued growth. 9/11 changed that.

Contrary to the sloganeering, 9/11 did not "change everything." It did not change the Constitution. It did not change the Rights with which all men have been "endowed by their Creator" despite the tyrannical demands of the state. And it did not change the military-industrial complex. If Eisenhower warned us that they needed watching before 9/11, lest they threaten our liberties, then they still needed to be watched afterwards. Unfortunately, like a skillful magician, the ruling elites kept the eyes of the people, especially conservatives, directed elsewhere whilst the real trickery occurred within their own government.

The elites understand how badly they have misruled us. They know how many deceptive stratagems they have employed to short circuit all citizen efforts at true reform. The political class is sucking the nation dry, and sooner or later they realize that the illusion will shatter and the common people will figure it out. The security state they are currently erecting with break-neck speed is not to protect us from Islamic terrorists- it's to protect them from the American people once it becomes clear how they have robbed us blind.

Consider the facts. How many Islamic terrorists have there been, both actual and would be, on American soil each year since 9/11? The average is a paltry 16 per year. That average includes 2009 where they caught 17 would-be's in a single incident. In the vast majority of these cases, government informants were not just providing information, they were essential to the execution of the act of terrorism. The government asset would, for example, be the source of the weapons to be used in the attack. In many of these cases it is very likely that no terrorist attack would have ever gone down without the involvement of the government asset. IOW, the police state is producing would-be terrorists to provide ongoing justification for it's increasingly intrusive war on terror.

This is not to say that there are no terrorists out there, or that some precautions are not in order. But let's be rational here. Let's be proportional. For 16 actual and wanna-be terrorists a year, most of whom could not have followed through without assistance from a government asset, it make no sense to re-shape a free society of 310 million people into a police state.

For 16 men a year, many mentally ill like one of the two captured in the recent Seattle scare, it makes no sense to allow the government to search without a warrant and without probable cause, all your credit card records, your bank records, your emails, and your phone records. It makes no sense to restrict your travel, set up road blocks, and grope your wives and daughters at airports (and now at other mass transit points). The Feds are watching all of us more closely while at the same time letting hordes of new Muslims into the country. None of that makes any sense. That is, it makes no sense if the real goal is to stop Islamic terrorism. If the real goal is to keep profits flowing to the war/security industry and subjagate the American people to a police state then these actions make perfect sense.

I call on my conservative friends to be wise and favor allocating resources to threats in a rational and proportional manner. To me, that means less focus on defeating "Islamic Terror" and more focus on rolling back the domestic police state. Washington D.C is a more immediate threat to our freedoms and prosperity than Mecca.

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Beebe and Hutchinson Feud Over Funding

Gov. Mike Beebe was very upset that the legislature passed $35 million more dollars in tax cuts than he wanted. That meant he had to cut somewhere. He decided to take $1.59 million of it from services to children from foster care programs. State Representative Donna Hutchinson (R) objected to those cuts. Beebe retorted that since they cut taxes, the money has to come from somewhere. For a highly left-tilted take on the brouhaha click here.

The Governor has a $50 million dollar personal slush fund, called the "quick action closing fund" which he gives to his favorite businesses at his sole discretion. He could have cut this fund by five percent and more than covered the cost of the cuts headed for foster children's programs. Instead, he chose to keep every penny of taxpayer's money he could get his hands on, cut the funding for the foster kids instead, and petulantly blame those who dared to cut taxes for his own actions. Now that's leadership!

The sad thing is, Obama has not even asked for their approval. He claims his authorization from the U.N., not Congress. Of course, his actions are a gross violation of the Constitution, and of the War Powers Act. Rather than impeaching him for this high crime, our bipartisan elites want to give him approval he never even asked for!

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

FOX News Fakes Birth Certificate Claims

Fox News is "controlled opposition." The Heartland of America had figured out a decade ago that the corporate global media was pumping misinformation out in an attempt to misguide the population. If the global elites had not generated a fake media to represent the Heartland, then someone groups from the heartland might have created a real one on their own. FOX served as a pressure release valve for the pent up disgust with media then present.

FOX is owned by an Aussie billionaire with significant business partnerships in communist China, and by a nominal Muslim Saudi Prince. IOW it is run by the same stripe of global elitists who run all the other media. But because it positioned itself to speak for the heartland, the global elites are now in a position to attempt to tell the heartland folks what their "acceptable" choice of leaders is, and to inform the heartland what their "acceptable" range of beliefs are.

One thing that FOX has declared out of bounds is questions about Barack Obama's eligibility for the office in which he now sits. There is no question in my mind, he is not eligible to hold the office, regardless of whether or not he was born in Hawaii. Still, it seemed like Obama was hiding something about his birth certificate. There are still many things he may want to hide that could be on that document- for example, an adoption by his Indonesian stepfather that would have made him a citizen of that country and changed his legal named to Barry Soetoro. This would be especially troublesome if there was no record of when he ever re-claimed his citizenship or changed his name back.

Recently, Obama released what he claimed to be his original birth certificate. FOX News acted like all of the rest of the global corporate media and held this up as proof the doubters were nuts. They even brought on an expert in computer graphics and forgery who attested to the genuineness of the document- only he didn't! It now turns out that Jean Claude Tremblay says that FOX selectively edited his quotes to make it seem as if he was vouching for the authenticity of the document. He says he has demanded a retraction from FOX, but they have ignored his demands and simply repeat one million more times that it has been "proved" that the document is genuine.

But if you still have some doubt about how rotten FOX is, visit most of the documentation right here and also here.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

The Perry Letter

********************************************Team Good Hair: Texas Governor Rick Perry gets a boost in the natural state as State Rep. David Sanders rounds up twenty state legislators who sign a letter asking Perry to enter the Presidential race.********************************************A sound analysis of Perry's candidacy should include two components: 1) Is he the answer in terms of policy and 2) is he the answer in terms of politics. A second question relates to the politics of state reps banding together and making an early endorsement on a Presidential primary race.

First observation: I noticed that none of these guys signed any letters asking former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee to jump in the race. Back in January, when Huckabee was considering jumping in the race, a poll of Texas voters was taken. Down in Texas, Mike Huckabee was the winner. It had Huckabee way ahead of Perry (who was in 6th place) in a potential presidential race. Is it a question of the grass always being greener? They think our guy is the answer and we think their guy is the answer? I don't know the answer! Still, even Pawlenty and Santorum poll better in their home states than Perry did in that poll.

Another Huckabee-Perry tie in is that both men are perceived as "conservatives" by the average member of the population in the nation at-large, but there are conservative activists in both states (like me in the case of Huckabee) who will tell you that each of them are posers. While I don't know about that for Perry, I specifically reject any idea that Perry is a political "outsider", though he does play one on TV.

It is true that Rick Perry has made some "Tea Party" type statements. His rhetoric is often conservative. While that is better than someone who spouts liberal or even "moderate" rhetoric, I remind you that he is from Texas. If you want to get elected, and stay that way, those are the kind of statements you had better make. It cost him nothing politically to talk as tough as he has in Texas. In fact, he could not have survived without it. I postulate that if Mitt Romney had been a Texan he would have said very similar things, instead of saying lefty things he had to say while running for office in Massachusetts.

I don't hear the Perry proponents talking much about his policies or exactly what he would do to, for example, reduce the federal deficit. Instead, they tend to cite stats about how well Texas as a state is doing. I am a policy wonk, and I can't see a compelling policy reason why Rick Perry needs to jump into this race. He is not offering any specific answers that are in any significant way different from several of the other announced candidates for the race.

Texas is the #1 oil and gas state in this country, and they had zero income tax before he ever became Governor. Of course they are going to be better off than the rest of the nation at a time when prices for oil are skyrocketing. Gov. Perry deserves credit for not screwing things up, but it is hard to cite any specific change of policy that he initiated that is responsible for the relatively strong economy which Texas enjoys.

The answer to the policy part of the question is "maybe, but there is no compelling policy reason I can detect for a Perry candidacy." The answer to the political part of the question is more clear. A Perry candidacy would risk a disaster for the GOP and for the country.

Consider that the field is already divided among several candidates who have a lot of potential staying power. While Romney is unpopular in the south, Northeast Republicans are going to roll their eyes at the thought of voting for another Texas Governor who fires six shooters into the air and even insincerely talks of succession from the union. They will stick with Romney. Romney has cash, and he has a large network of strongly motivated Mormon supporters throughout the nation. Unless he will take the Vice President slot, he is in it to win it. Romney is not going to bow out for Rick Perry. Ron Paul stayed in it until the end last time, and he is in a much stronger position now than he was four years ago. Western states tend to lean libertarian and he might have an even more resolute base than Romney. Michelle Bachman is a threat to win Iowa, and if she does then she will emerge as the favorite of the large slice of the Tea Party that is not ready for some of the difficult choices that Paul espouses.

Add Perry to that mix and there are four candidates who could win significant slices of delegates, enough to prevent any of them from winning the nomination outright. If Perry jumps in, we may be looking at a brokered convention, or such obvious establishment intervention to avoid one that it enrages the grassroots even further, leaving an ugly mood going into the Fall.

But the bigger problem for the Republicans is that Perry is absolutely the wrong man to beat Obama. He may be the kind of guy who makes southern conservatives swoon, but he matches up terribly against Obama. He does not have the potential to bring in one single swing vote group. Even McCain matched up better against Obama than Rick Perry.

Southern conservatives may not accept that statement, because they love Perry's style. I'm saying it is a mistake to think everyone in the country shares your tastes and thought-patterns. The best candidate is not always the one who makes people just like you get the most fired up. The best candidate is one who can also reach out to others who are not like you, while still keeping the substance you want. What you have to do is step back and try to mentally put yourself in the position of a swing voter in various parts of the country.

Do you really think that Western libertarians, midwesterners, and northeasterners, are going to be anxious to back another Texas Governor for President? The Bush administration only seems like the "good old days" relative to the Obama disaster, but it was the Bush disaster that permitted Obama to get the job in the first place. Perry would be seen as another Bush term to much of the rest of the nation, and that does not appeal to much of the country. His friendly relations with energy companies, a plus in Texas, will be used against him in a national race where angry citizens blame the oil companies every time they have to fill up. It is a political disaster waiting to happen. Planned Parenthood officials and other leftist parasites are probably on their knees praying to Satan that Perry enters the race!

The answers to the first two questions produces the answer to the third. While I admire their courage and feel that they had every right to band together and endorse a candidate, I can't see the wisdom in this specific move. Perhaps they should band together to address some matter specific to the state, such as the propriety of Dustin McDaniel setting up a government within the government, or his teaming with Governor Beebe to violate the state Constitution on redistricting.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Media Deception Over Who "Won" Debate

Watch the brief clip above and see how subtle they are, and how easy it would be for a viewer to confuse this with a legitimate poll of a large number of regular Republican voters. While Soledad O'Brian quickly states the poll they show is a poll of "Republican Insiders", the poll is labeled as only "Among Republicans". After that one quick mention, they talk on without giving any hint that the poll is anything other than a large poll of mainstream Americans who vote GOP. The deception is enhanced by the use of percentages in the poll, even though, on investigation, only 54 insiders were polled. The insiders gave Mitt Romney a win with 51"%". Ron Paul got 0% in this poll!

But if that misleading clip is not enough to convince you that the establishment is trying to undermine Paul, what they did not show you ought to be. These talking heads forgot to mention that they took another poll which allowed any viewer who wanted to vote to do so. In that poll Ron Paul took over 80%! I consider it a shocking example of bias that they only report the results from 54 insiders, with misleading labeling and follow-on discussion so that the casual viewer would think that Ron Paul got 0% from "Republicans" rather than a few dozen insiders. They gave no mention of the viewer poll, dominated by Paul. The difference between zero percent and 80% is not trivial. Especially when you consider than one is the opinion of insiders, and the other of the common citizens. You would think it would at least rate a mention.

My personal view is that based on presentation Romney and Bachman did well, and so did Gingrich. Those three helped their cause, though in Gringrich's case that cause may be selling books. Pawlenty, Santorum, and Cain did not do well. Paul was in the middle at least. He had over twice the applause lines of any other candidate. That is my take on presentation- how well they communicated what they believe.

Strategically, Paul did win. Four years ago other candidates and pundits were mocking his positions and snickering- now they are coming close to imitating him. They are taking much of his rhetoric and shading it just a bit more to the side of government interventionsim than he espouses. Several candidates said things like "Congressman Paul had it right". That's the kind of thing that adds up to a Paul win according to me, this guy from the Baltimore Sun, and this one over here.

One of the comments on the CNN board was from a fellow who had 30 people at his house to watch the debate. Before it began, he told his guests that CNN would not allow it to get out that Ron Paul won the thing. They laughed at him. Then after the debate he showed them the CNN viewer poll where Paul was in the high 70's, then they saw this clip where the commentators told them that Paul got 0% while not mentioning the larger poll. They weren't laughing anymore.

Here is another video which shows a variety of other major online polls taken over the subject of "who won" the debate. They could have reported on any of them, except that Paul won them all. Instead they reported on their "poll" of 54 insiders.

****************UPDATE***************TV 40/29 Unbelievably reports Stewart's departure without mentioning she is going to the Bachman campaign. Only saying it is to pursue "other opportunities". That's what you say when you get run off, or quit in disgust before you have anything else lined up. How can they report it like that when even I knew she was leaving for the Bachman campaign hours before this alleged "news" story? Selective reporting much? I join Congressman Hunter in demanding an explanation for this faggotry!

Sunday, June 12, 2011

What Real Abuse of Office Looks Like (McDaniel)

The issue: When Attorney General Dustin McDaniel wins a lawsuit for the state, what does he do with the award money? Does he deposit it with the State Treasury so the legislature can appropriate it? Nope. Does he send it to some other department of government that has a reasonable connection to the people hurt by the defendants in the suit? Nope. It turns out he keeps it and spends it to expand his own office however he sees fit! He also gives it to private charities of his choice, and he tends to choose those that would be able to show their gratitude should he run for Governor. Two of the many money-quotes from Advance Arkansas' Dan Greenberg....

McDaniel has illegally used public funds to benefit private interests in a way that violates both case law and the Constitution. In the process, he has assumed extra-constitutional spending powers his office does not have.

and

This is not simply a case of an officeholder using an office to advance his or her political aims. There is a larger concern: the de facto establishment of a fourth branch of government in the attorney general’s office, in which the attorney general has assumed the power to spend public money while ignoring the legislature.

But please, read the whole report from Greenberg here. It's not that long, and its very clear and well reasoned- unlike McDaniel's attempts to excuse the matter. The report takes every figleaf McDaniel's office has used to attempt to justify the action and shreds them. Greenberg is the one who sounds like an Attorney General ought to sound. McDaniel's office sounds like some low-rent lawyer trying to throw up any half-excuse they can think of for a used car dealership that has run afoul of the law.

So through was the Greenberg paper, and so obvious McDaniel's abuse of office, that not only John Brummett, but even Max Brantley has said "count me with the Republicans" on this one. I suppose I have a small crow to eat on that one. I have portrayed him as someone who can't or won't see misbehavior in one side, but is quick to hallucinate it from the other. This abuse of power is so clear that the entire political spectrum, from Brantley to Brummett to Greenberg to me, and if there is anybody out towards liberty more than me then likely them too, can agree on it.

The question now, what to do about it? When agreement is so complete across the political spectrum, when the abuse is so brazen, and the excuses for it so shallow, what is to be done? Who is our legal representation when our legal representative is the one we need to sue? If McDaniel persists in this illegal activity, what ought be done about it? What can be done?

No wonder QE II did not seem to stimulate our economy- it did not enter our economy! No wonder the ordinarily inflationary moves of creating this much fiat credit is not causing inflation, but rather we seem headed towards a deflationary depression. The money was created, but went to other economies! It sucked money and credit OUT of our economy at a time when Main St. is withering away for lack of it.

To anybody backing anyone other than Ron Paul for President, what in the world are you thinking? The elites in this nation are looting us dry. We are like people who have been robbed of everything by our accountants, but don't know it yet because the accountant is paying all our bills with credit cards that have not quite yet maxed out. And instead of supporting the one guy who understands what is going on and wants to fire the crooked accountant, some people are obsessing that he doesn't want to use even more money that we don't have to bomb people that the accountant and his buddies want bombed!

At any rate, Brantley raves that since the waiver the group signed to attend the training had a reference to the ropes course in it, he has somehow "proved" that Martin's office is "lying" about the non-issue of whether or not they went on the ropes. The Soderquist center simply used their standard waiver for the group, which includes a reference to the ropes course even if that is not one of the activities used for a given group.

These constant attacks over nit-picking stuff serve to keep Martin and his team tied down so that he can't devote the needed energy to exposing the unconstitutional redistricting antics of Beebe and McDaniel. The political crime of the decade in this state is being ignored while Queeg, er Brantley, writes multiple stories on whether or not Martin's team attended a ropes course as part of their training!

Martin, who stayed in Little Rock while key staff went to the training, spoke to me about the whole issue of hiring the Soderquist center to do the event. Put yourself in his shoes. You have a staff of well over 100 people, 20 or so of whom you let go, but the rest are retained hires of the opposition party. You go into your office, and three burned-out paper shredders are sitting there, still full of fresh paper shreds. You look at the 100 retained hires in those cubicles. In many cases you have no idea what their duties are, and the paperwork documenting it likely sits in the refuse bins of those shredders.

How do you proceed? Don't you think a little team-building exercise between the staff you are bringing in and key members of the staff already present is a good idea? Especially if some parts of the exercise are to get folks to help define their own responsibilities and duties after the old lists of duties vanished? Especially if the money was already budgeted for training by the prior administration (i.e. it is not new spending)?

Martin has taken a lot of unnecessary heat, even from people who should know better, on this thing. What should he be doing instead with any energy he has left after fending off these attacks? How about blowing the lid on what is really going on in redistricting? That's a bigger deal than some missing strawberries.

Football and Enlightenment

John Brummett grouses about Hendrix adding football on a non-scholarship basis. He writes "It is a basic truth, one of inverse proportionality: The less progressive and enlightened a place, the higher the salary of the university football coach and the better the team.

There is no need to call names, like Alabama and Saban, or South Carolina and Spurrier, or Arkansas and Petrino, or Ohio, especially Ohio, at least lately. "

If by "enlightened and progressive" one means a place that gives a quality education as demonstrated by having had graduates and research departments which have added much to mankind's body of knowledge and store of both intellectual and technological wealth, then Brummett is his usual self. Which is to say that he is wrong.

By that definition, Arkansas has contributed more than Arkansas Monticello, or even Arkansas State, or even Hendrix for that matter, to the progress and enlightenment of mankind. Some of that simply has to do with size and scale of course, but that was not what Brummett was arguing. He argues an inverse correlation between progress and enlightenment and quality of football program. I would argue a positive correlation between size of the school and quality of the program, or as former Texas coach Darrell Royal put it "the big ones will always eat the little ones."

Speaking of Texas, that is a place known to have both strong football and academics- sort of like the new PAC 10 powerhouse Stanford. Michigan, the program that has had the most wins in college football, has a higher reputation of educational excellence than Michigan State. Penn State is considered by many to be above Pitt on both the educational and football ladder. Nationwide you will see a positive correlation between a school's educational accomplishments and its football program because excellence is a habit. By Brummett's standard, the online University of Phoenix ought to be the most "enlightened" and "progressive" of them all!

You might point to a number of small private schools which have excellent academics and little gridiron tradition. This is more a function of the superiority of private education to government education. Government education tends to get captured more quickly, and used as a political tool to the detriment of the open and honest inquiry fundamental to true learning. The correlation between excellence is not big football or little football, it is government control vs. freedom. The fair comparison is between government controlled universities and by that standard the correlation is to the reverse of what Brummett claims. The bigger and better the football team, the bigger and better the university in educational reputation. Texas beats Texas El Paso, on the field and off.

On the other hand, if by "progressive" and "enlightened" one means handicapped by a truncated liberal-materialist PC view of the world imposed to the exclusion of other views, then it is true that the more "progressive and enlightened" a school is then the worse its football team will tend to be. It's education will be worse too, because modern liberalism, with its choking pressure to conform rather than question, is a drag on true education. Such schools will excel only at indoctrination.

One can spout PC clap-trap all day in the sheltered ivy towers of a university, but football does not allow such unreality to prosper. In football, if your game plan is not as realistic as those of your competitors, you lose. Right and wrong ideas can be measured out on the scoreboard. "Progressive and Enlightened" misperceptions about who man is, and what truth is, cannot survive the honest tests of courage, skill, planning, and teamwork which football represents.

And since modern progressive thought tries to create its own reality by shouting down negative feedback rather than adjusting to actual reality, they have no sound mechanism by which to correct their mistakes. Post-modern progressivism does not debate ideas, it simply smears opponents with name calling and labels. Slaying the messenger does not undo the truth content of the message, any more than cheerleaders braying out an insulting cheer about the other school wins football games. "Progressive and enlightened" thought of the PC variety is not a mechanism to better function in the real world, but an attempt to make an imagined world the real one. Its hard to build something that functions competitively in the real world- like a football team, on that basis.

Wednesday, June 08, 2011

Our State Controlled Media hasn't mentioned this because they are too busy with 24/7 coverage of Wiener gate and some pop-tart's latest trip to rehab. That is why we have to go to a British paper to bring you this outrageous story.

Republican State Senators Co-Host, Attend Democrat Senator Fundraiser

*****************************************How would you like to be a Nashville area conservative considering a run as a Republican against big-spending Democratic State Senator Larry Teague? Every member of the 35 member senate has their name on the invitation to attend his re-election fundraiser, including all 15 Republicans(update: Senator Rappert claims that his name was used w/o permission). Some Republicans (Senator Bill Pritchard of Elkins and former GOP State Chairman Senator Gilbert Baker) are even listed as co-sponsors.

“One thing the feds could learn from us in Arkansas is after the election, we put our D’s and R’s away and do our business,” said Sen. Bill Pritchard, R-Elkins, one of the fundraiser’s co-hosts. Your business sir? Is co-hosting fundraisers for members of the opposition party "your" business?

While all the Republicans involved, and even Teague himself, said it was not an "Endorsement", it will have an obvious and chilling effect on anyone considering running against Teague as a Republican. How would you like to try to run against a guy where every member of your own party in the chamber you hope to join has signed on to a fund-raiser for him to be re-elected? While it may not be an "endorsement", people in this business understand that its a powerful message.

“I don’t think it’s an endorsement,” Teague is quoted by the APs Andrew Demillo (sorry I don't have a reliable source) as saying, “I think it was a sign of solidarity and friendship.”

Teague, as President Pro Tem of the Senate, has considerable power. He decides what committee bills have to go through, and as such he can kill a bill by sending it to a committee where he knows it will be treated unfavorably. So a lot of this is just sucking up to a guy with a lot of power. That may serve power well, but it doesn't serve the people well. People who are unhappy with the direction this state has gone under the Gov. Beebe and Senator Teague want another choice. The actions of the Republican senators, where they are all one big group of "friends" expressing "solidarity" with Teague, denies the people a loyal opposition to turn to. Or rather, denies them the Republicans as that loyal opposition.

Current Republican State Chairman Doyle Webb would not say whether or not Republican Senators lending their names to the fundraiser was a good idea. His office did release a brief statement which says "no seats are off the table." In theory maybe, but the facts on the ground say otherwise.

This is not the first time something like this has happened. Sen. Gilbert Baker had many Democrats attending his fundraiser two years ago in his bid to become the Democrat's favorite Republican. It was Baker who blocked fellow Republican Senator Dave Bisbee of Rogers from attaining the Senate Pro Tem Position by leading a group of four Republicans who voted for a Democrat for the position instead.

My take: Its bad enough that sellout Republicans back one another up so that if a reform candidate tries to take one on in the primary, he has to accept that his opponent will have a string of high profile endorsements and big names at their fundraisers. The average voter doesn't know what a snake the sellout is, they only know that the "big names" are all backing him, so they vote for him. It is a real impediment to getting good people elected.

As sorry as that is, this may be worse. Now, not only will the establishment jump all over anyone who dares challenge one of the insiders in a party primary, but the Republicans and the Democrats are to the point where they act to protect each others insiders! I have often said that the insiders of both DC based political gangs which have led our nation to both fiscal and moral ruin are more comfortable with one another than they are with the outsiders of their own parties.

Tea Party, if you have the sauce for it, you ought to find someone to run as an Independent against Teague- and Pritchard and Baker while you are at it. That's the only way the people are going to get a real choice in those races.

Saturday, June 04, 2011

Republicans Provide Cover for Obama, and Themselves, On Libya

So do we have a real opposition on foreign policy, or are the insiders who run both parties faking the fight over it?

******************************************

What just happened in Congress in regards to our latest foreign intervention in Libya is a perfect example of everything that is wrong in Washington D.C. Resident Obama committed our military to war without bothering to get a declaration of war, or any authorization whatsoever, from Congress.

A prior Congress voted in something called "The War Powers Act" which allowed a President to unilaterally commit American forces to war so long as he got approval from Congress for the action up to 60 days afterward. Some Constitutional scholars question if even the War Powers act doesn't give too much leeway to the executive branch. But so contemptuous was Obama of both Congress and the Constitution that he did not even bother asking for their permission, even after the fact. The 60 days have expired.

Dennis Kucinich is a liberal Democrat, but he also posses an idealism that has become both rare and quaint within the beltway when it is no threat, and hated and detested when it is. Have you ever noticed how insiders from the two dominant political parties get along with each other a lot better than they do with the outsiders from their own parties? Kucinich is an outsider in the Democratic party.

Kucinich introduced a strongly worded resolution which would inform Obama that he was in violation of the War Powers Act, and that he had 15 days to withdraw U.S. forces from the Libyan war. The measure was getting a lot of support. People are tired of borrowing money from the Chinese to stick our nose in more and more foreign wars where there are no good guys to back. The folks back home were demanding that their representatives stand up to Obama.

If things were left on course, the measure might have passed. That was when Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner stepped in. He pulled the Kucinich measure from consideration until the establishment could craft a weaker, purely symbolic, competitor bill.

Once that bill was crafted, Boehner allowed a vote on them both. Here is the game they play. They vote against the Kucinich measure, which actually had teeth and would have really changed policy, and vote for the Republican measure which was just symbolic and let Obama completely off the hook for violating the law (and the Constitution) with his actions in Libya. But the symbolic measure gives them the cover they need to go home and beat their chests to voters about how they "voted to condemn the President's actions in Libya." It's a show. It's pro wrestling. The ones that really wanted to rebuke Obama are the ones who voted for the Kucinich measure, and not just Boehner's face-saving substitute.

All four Arkansas Representatives were among those who voted for the empty symbolism of the establishment measure that will allow Obama to continue to violate the law, while at the same time voting against the substantive measure backed by Kucinich. This shows that they don't really want to hold Obama accountable. They don't really want to do their duty to restrain the Executive branch. At the same time, they really want you to think that they do, hence they vote for the empty gesture and against substantive action.

Thursday, June 02, 2011

Brummett, State GOP Tag Team in Misdirection Madness

The Garrish Show Which Distracts You From the Important Story.**************************The Garrish Show: Establishment Character Assassin John Brummett puts up a piece today excoriating the state Republican Party for their efforts to determine whether or not the contributors to the Blue Hog Report blog- state employees, were blogging on state time. He suggests instead that they should join the misinformation fueled lynch mob that Blue Hog and Arktimes, and Brummett himself for that matter, are stirring up against Republican Secretary of State Mark Martin.

The whole thing is misdirection madness. The attacks on Martin, when examined in detail, are pretty absurd and clearly amount to an attempt to nit-pick until his office is paralyzed. It's brilliant strategic thinking from the Democrats because the Secretary of State, if he had any help, is the natural person to stop them from....

The Important Story they are Distracting you from: The real story that ought to be on the front page of every paper in this state- Beebe and McDaniel are making a farce of the redistricting process in violation of the state constitution. In the dark, they are redrawing state legislative district lines in a way that will influence the politics of this state for the next decade. Meanwhile, all the press seems to want to talk about are these mis-direction non-stories about Martin and a tiny blog.

Martin's office meanwhile, is trying to slow the fallout from the extra-constitutional power grab, but without help from either state media or the GOP. My source tells me that when they get shown a map from the other side that includes lines that are so flawed that they could even leave the state open to federal lawsuits, they make their concerns known. The Beebe-McDaniel faction has been angrily dismissing these concerns, and the press shows no interest in shedding any light on the matter. They are instead beating the drums on all these piddling little non-stories while the political crime of the decade in this state goes on right under their noses. The Secretary of State's office must be extremely frustrated.

Even more so because of the way the state Republican party is mishandling this. Yes, they raised a valid point about a small blog that was contributing to the paralyzing attacks on the Secretary of State's office. No, Campbell should not be blogging on state time, if indeed he was. Especially if his focus is on exposing alleged misuse of state funds from others! But the net effect of all this is that it make the GOP look like it's response to the critics is to try to silence them.

What should they be doing instead of FOIing critical blogs? How about filing a lawsuit against Beebe and McDaniel for violating the Constitution's provisions on how to conduct redistricting? That is where the important issue is. That is where they are going to get the playing field tilted against them for the next decade. How about some press releases, or even newsletters to their own faithful, blowing the whistle on this story? Every time the media talks to them about any story they should ask the media "why aren't you covering the most important (even if not the most flashy) Arkansas political story of this decade?

The redistricting process is important. It is time for some people to grow up and see beyond the misdirection madness to what is important.

Wednesday, June 01, 2011

Great Guacamole, in a Fair Poll, Ron Paul May Be Winning This Thing

*****************************

I am trying very hard not to get too caught up in Presidential politics. I want to focus on state and local issues. Still, I am amazed to see Ron Paul catch on the way he has, over the loud shouts of "He can't win" from establishment leaning Republicans.

I am not talking about the recent poll which showed him trailing Resident Obama by only a single point, well within the margin. I have always figured that the "bomb half the world on credit till the credit runs dry" faction of the Republican party would be his biggest obstacle. That is, I always assumed he could win the general election simply because of the way he slices into Obama's base of young voters, libertarians, and peace activists. The only thing keeping Paul a guy "who can't win" is the faction of the Republican party who will do everything in their power to keep him from winning.

Instead I am talking about this very recent Gallup poll. Sure, it shows him in 3rd place with 10%, behind Romney with 17 and Palin with 12. But what shocked me was their well-concealed polling data! I got a look at it, now I can't find it. Let me tell you what I saw though: No one in the 18-34 age group was polled, nor was anyone in the 35-44 age demographic polled! The poll was all older voters! Everyone knows that Paul does well among young voters, yet he still finished 3rd in a poll that does not include them. They divided the results by "under 50" responses and "over 50" responses. Romney did well in the under 50 group, but the biggest difference in under/over 50 support was found in Ron Paul's numbers. He was 16% in the under 50 group (which again contained no one under 45) vs. only 6% in the over 50 voters.

This is increasingly turning into a three way race. Romney, the establishment moderate with liberal Republicans and Mormons behind him, Paul, with his "leave me alone government" coalition, and a third group which I will call "belligerent older voters". Palin and Cain are splitting their support.

End Run Around the State Constitution on Apportionment

Are 135 more "Fayetteville Fingers" about to grope the voters of this state courtesy of Governor Mike Beebe and Attorney General Dustin McDaniel?***************************The April 7th edition of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette contained a quote about the redistricting process that did not get enough attention at the time...

"After voting to hire former secretary of state’s office attorney Joe Woodson Jr. of Little Rock as the board’s redistricting coordinator, the board voted 2-to-1 to give Woodson autonomy from any of the elected officials involved."

The vote put Woodson in charge of most spending, along with the board website, scheduling, staff and the apportionment office.

What was behind the vote? Well the language of Article 8 of the Constitution gives the Secretary of State the most authority in the apportionment process, and the Secretary of State is a Republican (Mark Martin). So in a blatantly partisan move Beebe and McDaniel voted to not only hire as redistricting coordinator a man that Martin choose not to retain when he entered the Secretary of State's office, but voted over Martin's objection to give him "autonomy" from the redistricting board as well.

I see lots of problems with their partisan actions, not the least of which is that the language of State Constitution does not permit it. To whit, section 1 of article 8...

A Board to be known as "The Board of Apportionment," consisting of the Governor (who shall be Chairman), the Secretary of State and the Attorney General is hereby created and it shall be its imperative duty to make apportionment of representatives in accordance with the provisions hereof; the action of a majority in each instance shall be deemed the action of said board

The Constitution specifies that the Board of Apportionment has an "imperative duty" to make the apportionment of representatives (the state legislative districts). By voting to give the "redistricting coordinator" - a position created by fiat and not even listed in the constitution, "autonomy from any of the elected officials involved" Beebe and McDaniel undo the clear intent of the article that the Board itself is to do these things. They cannot delegate this power to another authority and then declare it "autonomous" from members of the very board the article empowers to control the process!

Example: Our federal Congress has the power of the purse strings. All funding bills are to originate in the House by the letter of the Constitution. Congress does not have the authority to delegate its power to originate funding bills to the Senate, to the President, or to any "funding coordinator" which they might choose to name. They don't have the authority to delegate duties which the Constitution expressly gives to them. The same principle applies to the state constitution and the Board of Apportionment. Their constitutional authority does not give them the power to violate their constitutional authority.

This is a time-honored legal principle. Unfortunately Beebe and McDaniel are ignoring it and acting in an unprincipled manner. What is especially galling is their claim that they are doing this to "take the politics out of it" when in reality their actions simply serve to insulate the politics they are putting into it from the sterilizing force of daylight. And this violation is not a mere academic point. Your family will be living with the results of this process for a decade. We all see what they tried to do with the Fayetteville Finger. Will the people of this state be subjected to 135 such maps, drawn up in secrecy, rammed through without oversight, all in violation of the law?